Everybody hates Abbott
Abbott Laboratories is under fire for its business practices in the field of HIV yet again--but not from the usual suspects. Typically the target of patient activist groups and third-world governments, this time Abbott is being sued by other businesses.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Safeway Inc., Walgreen Co., Kroger Co., New Albertson's Inc., and American Sales Co., all of which carry Abbott's HIV drug Norvir in their pharmacies, are suing Abbott for having "unlawfully extended its monopoly as the sole provider of Norvir." What does that mean? In this case, it means that Abbott raised the price of Norvir by 400% in 2003.
Why did Abbott hike the price? Norvir, rather than fighting HIV directly, is used in small quantities with the class of anti-HIV drugs known as protease inhibitors; Norvir increases the concentrations of those drugs within the body and thus boosts their effectiveness. There are several protease inhibitors now on the market, and one of those is Abbott's medication Kaletra -- the only protease cheap cialis that also contains Norvir. All of Kaletra's competitors require a separate purchase of Norvir in order to get boosted efficacy; therefore, the Norvir price hike was a strategic move in an effort by Abbott to insulate Kaletra from competition. Now, Kaletra is cheaper than taking another protease inhibitor, such as Reyataz or Prezista, in combination with the higher-priced Norvir. (Additional scenarios considered were to discontinue the capsule form of Norvir and sell only its oral formulation, which is said to taste like vomit, and to take Norvir completely off the market.)
I do not wish to defend Abbott's decision. But I will defend Abbott's perfect moral right to make that decision.
It's bad enough that HIV activists and governments believe that patients have the right to a pharmaceutical company's products at whatever price they choose to pay (or for no cost at all), just because the patients need the drugs. But it's even more distasteful that the businesses that sell these drugs to consumers are joining in the fray. One would think that other businessmen would understand the right of a producer to offer his product at whatever price he chooses to ask. Patients do have rights here -- they can choose to take their protease inhibitors without Norvir (an option that many patients take even without considering the price difference), or they can choose to take a regimen that doesn't include a protease inhibitor at all. They can protest Abbott's pricing decision peacefully. What they must not do is use physical force (i.e., the government) to coerce Abbott into selling Norvir at their preferred price. The same goes for pharmacies: Just because the management is unhappy that it can't offer Norvir as cheaply as it used to, it doesn't mean that they can force Abbott to sell Norvir at the old price at the point of a gun.
One would also think other businessmen would understand the danger of letting the government decide at what price Abbott should be allowed to sell Norvir. If Norvir is to be sold at a lower price because patients need it, or because Albertson's supermarkets want to increase volume by selling the drug more cheaply, why shouldn't the government then be able to force Albertson's to sell its groceries at cost, because after all, what do human beings need more than food and drink?
This lawsuit should be dismissed for the farce that it is. There is no such thing as "unlawfully extending monopoly" when that monopoly is not government-enforced.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Safeway Inc., Walgreen Co., Kroger Co., New Albertson's Inc., and American Sales Co., all of which carry Abbott's HIV drug Norvir in their pharmacies, are suing Abbott for having "unlawfully extended its monopoly as the sole provider of Norvir." What does that mean? In this case, it means that Abbott raised the price of Norvir by 400% in 2003.
Why did Abbott hike the price? Norvir, rather than fighting HIV directly, is used in small quantities with the class of anti-HIV drugs known as protease inhibitors; Norvir increases the concentrations of those drugs within the body and thus boosts their effectiveness. There are several protease inhibitors now on the market, and one of those is Abbott's medication Kaletra -- the only protease cheap cialis that also contains Norvir. All of Kaletra's competitors require a separate purchase of Norvir in order to get boosted efficacy; therefore, the Norvir price hike was a strategic move in an effort by Abbott to insulate Kaletra from competition. Now, Kaletra is cheaper than taking another protease inhibitor, such as Reyataz or Prezista, in combination with the higher-priced Norvir. (Additional scenarios considered were to discontinue the capsule form of Norvir and sell only its oral formulation, which is said to taste like vomit, and to take Norvir completely off the market.)
I do not wish to defend Abbott's decision. But I will defend Abbott's perfect moral right to make that decision.
It's bad enough that HIV activists and governments believe that patients have the right to a pharmaceutical company's products at whatever price they choose to pay (or for no cost at all), just because the patients need the drugs. But it's even more distasteful that the businesses that sell these drugs to consumers are joining in the fray. One would think that other businessmen would understand the right of a producer to offer his product at whatever price he chooses to ask. Patients do have rights here -- they can choose to take their protease inhibitors without Norvir (an option that many patients take even without considering the price difference), or they can choose to take a regimen that doesn't include a protease inhibitor at all. They can protest Abbott's pricing decision peacefully. What they must not do is use physical force (i.e., the government) to coerce Abbott into selling Norvir at their preferred price. The same goes for pharmacies: Just because the management is unhappy that it can't offer Norvir as cheaply as it used to, it doesn't mean that they can force Abbott to sell Norvir at the old price at the point of a gun.
One would also think other businessmen would understand the danger of letting the government decide at what price Abbott should be allowed to sell Norvir. If Norvir is to be sold at a lower price because patients need it, or because Albertson's supermarkets want to increase volume by selling the drug more cheaply, why shouldn't the government then be able to force Albertson's to sell its groceries at cost, because after all, what do human beings need more than food and drink?
This lawsuit should be dismissed for the farce that it is. There is no such thing as "unlawfully extending monopoly" when that monopoly is not government-enforced.